What position exactly does Lord Flemmingtonsterson the Third actually perform for the company. I never heard of him until those wierd memos started coming around. Is his first name really 'Lord'? Who names their kid 'Lord'?...

"Lord,... Lord honey, ... time for dinner,".

Does Lord Percy know him? You guys must meet at some annual Lordly Meeting of Lordly Lords, no? (I'm not suggesting Lord Percy is anevil Lord, like Lord Flemmingchershire!)

I finally got through to my RAAM. He said that they arent telling him anything thats happening. He said that the pay might be staggered so some people at 12pm and others at 3pm, but he said that was just a a guess. He said that there's no word about the meeting or announcement. He told me that it was a good thing for me to toppatsu today. You know its a bad sign when that happens. This really doesnt look good.

fart-ass wrote:What position exactly does Lord Flemmingtonsterson the Third actually perform for the company. I never heard of him until those wierd memos started coming around. Is his first name really 'Lord'? Who names their kid 'Lord'?...

"Lord,... Lord honey, ... time for dinner,".

Does Lord Percy know him? You guys must meet at some annual Lordly Meeting of Lordly Lords, no? (I'm not suggesting Lord Percy is anevil Lord, like Lord Flemmingchershire!)

Who the fuck is Our Lord Flemmington Steele?!

Strange name and apparently a strange man. His name is Flemming Lord for what it's worth.

soontobeexAT wrote:I finally got through to my RAAM. He said that they arent telling him anything thats happening. He said that the pay might be staggered so some people at 12pm and others at 3pm, but he said that was just a a guess. He said that there's no word about the meeting or announcement. He told me that it was a good thing for me to toppatsu today. You know its a bad sign when that happens. This really doesnt look good.

The whole NOVA fiasco is really a catch-22 situation – in that it is a matter of either staying on and helping those who are also staying on, or leaving and trying to save your own skin, but by leaving, you then loose out on potential unemployment benefits.

I think the main reason why most people who continue to work are continuing to work is that they don’t want to exacerbate the situation. If for some reason, NOVA happens to pull through this, it will be partly due to the people who did stay on. Those who are leaving due to this crisis are only exacerbating the situation. It’s not the problem of increasing work load for those remaining behind, but reducing the services available to the students, which, in turn, causes more students to quit. This is where the talked about “downward spiral” truly begins. Yes, closing schools will add to this, but the initial momentum will come from the lack of staffing levels and drop in number of available classes.

That being said, there is merit in people not showing up so that the situation can reach critical mass, services not being provided, and the company more quickly reaches insolvency – meaning that people receive their unemployment benefits faster – however, with a company as large as NOVA, even if operations were suspended for a period of time, it would still take time for the financial effect to be felt and insolvency declared, the effects you are seeing now are not due to recent events, but rather, have been predicated by months of financial issues. Additionally, even if NOVA were to get a large financial injection, it would still be months before this financial effect were truly realized.

For those who are thinking about tendering their resignation (who might be eligible for unemployment benefits), my suggestion to you is don’t. Not because I am arguing for you to continue to work without pay, but rather, for your own benefits. As long as you are either fired from the company (for failing to show up), or the company goes bankrupt – you will be able to claim unemployment benefits. If you are going to stop showing up (e.g. turn in a resignation form dated immediately – or turn one in 30 days post-dated and then call in or take vacation until them), I suggest simply calling in (not turning in a resignation), or not showing up at all. This way, if the company does go under, you will receive benefits. This will also give you the freedom to go out and look for a job at the same time; without having to worry about loosing out on benefits should the situation arise.

Say you do turn in your resignation, 30 days post-dated, stop showing up, and then fail to find a new job in this time period. But at the same time, NOVA does not go bankrupt before your resignation goes through. You now have to wait an additional 90 calendar days from the date of resignation to receive unemployment benefits (even if they went bankrupt the next day, you still wouldn’t receive the benefits because you “quit” before you were “fired”) – this, in essence, could mean that it would be up to 120 days before you receive your next bit of income.

There are two camps in this argument – those who are going to stay on and continue to work, and those who are jumping ship. Each camp presents valid arguments as to their rationale for their decision – what I hate to see, is this vile resentment between these camps. Those who are staying on are calling the jumpers selfish for abandoning the company and causing an increased workload for those staying on. Those who are jumping are calling those who are staying naïve and stupid for not getting out while they can. However, the fact of the matter is – the only person you have to rely on is yourself, and thus, your decisions should be based on the best possible course of action which will provide you with the greatest benefits.

Those who stay on are continuing to work because of their altruistic nature – which, in reality, is an inherently egocentric response – calling the others selfish is just as selfish as their internal motivations. By staying on, they hope others do the same – that is, they want others to reciprocate the benefits given to the company and hope to keep the ship going until they themselves can receive personal gain from it (either in the form of back pay or unemployment benefits). Those who leave, are in the eyes of those who stay, abandoning the cause for selfish purposes – e.g. not displaying the same level of outward altruism as those who are staying on. But, ultimately it comes down to an inherently selfish need – either the need to stay on and get benefits (for the self) or to leave and look for employment elsewhere (for the self). Both actions are one in the same, simply two different facets of the internal expression of need.

Conversely, those who are leaving are calling those who stay on stupid and naïve for staying on. I highly doubt that anyone staying on is doing so because they are oblivious to the situation. Even those AAMs and ATs who spin a positive tale are simply doing so, neither out of “trying to spin the company line” nor out of “oblivity”, but rather, in an effort to alleviate the stress in the workplace, try to improve overall morale, and hope to garner a better level of service for the students.

While the workers do pose to loose a lot from this crisis, the real losers are the paying customers. There is not some “un-ekiwaded” insurance out there – essentially, those who spent their money are looking to loose out on their spent cost (tangible), whereas, even if the staff is not paid, they will eventually be able to be compensated somewhat through governmental services – and can find other employment. In other words, while the staff may have lost out on potential pay (intangible promise) – the only real loss they incurred is that of time – potential earnings are not the same as actual earnings. The students, on the other hand, have lost out on actual earnings (tangible currency) which they used to pay for their tickets. In other words, yes the staff worked for free (e.g. lost out on the time spent working and not getting paid), and yes the staff was promised pay through their contracts – however, the net result is that this was money simply “expected” (intangible promise) but not yet “had” (tangible currency); students, conversely – “had” the money, and then lost the money – e.g. the transitive action of time-for-money (standard working contracts) already took place and therefore was a more tangible loss.

In all sense of justice (i.e. legal system) loss on the “potential” is considered far less then loss of “tangible”. Take for example, a company working in a rented building which is somehow destroyed (ala. Natural disaster, terrorism, etc…) the company can receive some insurance claims for loss of service income due to the disaster. However, the owner of the building will receive a far greater sum of money due to the loss of his tangible asset, vs. the loss of potential income from said tangible asset.

But in any case, I wish the best for everyone out there.

Before I go, I would like to make a request to everyone out there – I know this is a hard time and I know some people are thinking about doing vindictive things against the company (weather large or small). I would urge you to refrain from doing anything which can come back to hurt you later. Even a small infraction (misdemeanor theft or vandalism) could potentially hurt you in the future. If you want to go, then simply go, don’t make it harder for those who are sticking on – remember, you aren’t hurting the company when you smear fecal matter all over the toilet stall in a vindictive moment of unpaid rage – you are hurting all the other workers who have to use the toilet for the rest of the day/week there. If you do wish to get back at the company, do so in ways which 1) will not hurt you now or ever (e.g. nothing illegal or anything a future employer might fire you over if discovered) and 2) will not hurt those who are staying on (e.g. damaging equipment, making places unusable).

Appropriate action might be – filing labor complaints, protesting, contacting the media, spreading vicious “insider” rumors, dissuading new students from signing up, dissuading potential students from joining, persuading current students to leave (or take lessons from you instead), heck, even standing outside of branches heckling students going inside.

Again, remember, this is a very emotional time for everyone involved, don’t do anything rash which you may later regret or may come back to hurt you in the long run. Even those who are going back home and leaving Japan thinking that what they do here and now will not hurt them, may, in the future, have issues because of something they did here (who knows they may want to come back to Japan in the future, only to find out they are banned because they were reported for some felony…)

So to summarize:
1) Don’t quit or resign while you are looking for a new position. If don’t feel like coming in any more, simply call in, or not come in at all. Once you do have something lined up, quit. Either be fired (for not showing up) or wait till the company tanks (if it does)
2) Don’t do anything which might hurt you (now or later) or others still working.
3) Try and keep positive, support each other, and look to the “happier” times you had while working (like that one time that really cute girl came with that really short dress and …)
4) Remember even though you may be quitting, there will still be people sticking it out, don’t feel resentment towards them – and the same goes for those sticking it out, don’t feel resentment for those who do quit. BE supportive, this is a hard emotional time for everyone involved.

The biggest stressor in all of this is not the company actually going under, but rather the uncertainty and unknown.

It would be far better to know for certain the company was going to fail, your job were lost, then to be sitting in limbo.

"But the signs are out there and the company is dead" everyone keeps saying. The signs may be out there, but there is always the remote possibility (however unfathomably small) that something positive does happen - but until something official comes, in the form of a financial announcement, it is merely speculation on everyone's part. And until that announcement comes, no one will receive unemployment and maybe no one will be paid.

Those who leave now, psychologically speaking, have a lower tolerance for the stress of uncertainty then those who are sticking it out. In other words, the certainty of "not having a job" (while being a very strong stressor, is actually a lot less then the "uncertainty" of possibly having or possibly not having a job.

Look at it this way, NOVA may do some drastic restructuring, laying off a bunch of instructors and closing down a bunch of branches - those who are lucky enough not to get laid off, may be in a prime position within the company for possible growth in the future, while those who leave or who are fired are in a great position to find other jobs as their work experience in the industry has given them excellent opportunities.

Either way, please try and keep positive about this. If you are having a hard time, please - I urge you to speak with people, friends, co-workers, relatives. We do not need more tragedies in an already unpleasant situation.

Cornwalis the Unholy wrote:So to summarize:1) Don’t quit or resign while you are looking for a new position. If don’t feel like coming in any more, simply call in, or not come in at all. Once you do have something lined up, quit. Either be fired (for not showing up) or wait till the company tanks (if it does)2) Don’t do anything which might hurt you (now or later) or others still working.3) Try and keep positive, support each other, and look to the “happier” times you had while working (like that one time that really cute girl came with that really short dress and …)4) Remember even though you may be quitting, there will still be people sticking it out, don’t feel resentment towards them – and the same goes for those sticking it out, don’t feel resentment for those who do quit. BE supportive, this is a hard emotional time for everyone involved.

long post, but my solemn suggestion is to *bring the company down*. The faster it closes it's doors the faster you can receive unemployment. Nova's bad, there's no discussion about it....it's bad to the teachers and bad to the students...the best way out of the 'catch-22' is the take out the company that's causing pain.... get it over with, and move on.

The problem is that no matter what you do, it is ultimately the head of the company, the investors, and the government who will be deciding that fate. And if they don't do anything, its just exacerbating an already bad situation - meaning not only do people have to sit in limbo, they have to sit in limbo in crappy conditions.

Again, I am not suggesting "not" taking action, I am simply requesting that whatever action you do take is not one that will come back to hurt you, nor will it hurt those working around you. Vandalism and petty theft is not the answer. Hurting staff, students, or other instructors is not the answer. Yelling at your branch manager is not the answer.

Stealing students, talking with the customers and getting them to quit, standing outside branches on your day off dissuading students, filing legal complaints, getting the media involved, getting the government involved, somehow getting the investors and banks involved.... lots of ways, but ways which won't hurt you nor your fellow workers (who are going through just as hard as you are).

Cornwalis the Unholy wrote:The biggest stressor in all of this is not the company actually going under, but rather the uncertainty and unknown.

It would be far better to know for certain the company was going to fail, your job were lost, then to be sitting in limbo.

"But the signs are out there and the company is dead" everyone keeps saying. The signs may be out there, but there is always the remote possibility (however unfathomably small) that something positive does happen - but until something official comes, in the form of a financial announcement, it is merely speculation on everyone's part. And until that announcement comes, no one will receive unemployment and maybe no one will be paid.

Those who leave now, psychologically speaking, have a lower tolerance for the stress of uncertainty then those who are sticking it out. In other words, the certainty of "not having a job" (while being a very strong stressor, is actually a lot less then the "uncertainty" of possibly having or possibly not having a job.

Look at it this way, NOVA may do some drastic restructuring, laying off a bunch of instructors and closing down a bunch of branches - those who are lucky enough not to get laid off, may be in a prime position within the company for possible growth in the future, while those who leave or who are fired are in a great position to find other jobs as their work experience in the industry has given them excellent opportunities.

Either way, please try and keep positive about this. If you are having a hard time, please - I urge you to speak with people, friends, co-workers, relatives. We do not need more tragedies in an already unpleasant situation.

Sorry Mr. Cornwallis but your arguments are so balanced that they negate each other and raise no new or valid points. You sound like a BT or AAM.

Cornwalis the Unholy wrote:Additionally, even if NOVA were to get a large financial injection, it would still be months before this financial effect were truly realized.

You maybe right about a large financial injection. However, they said that just before my company (Bi-Lingual), ASA (it's on another thread), and NCB (in the Japan Times article) went bankrupt.

novawhiz wrote:Unless there is a huge injection of cash, and soon, the company is dead meat. Forget 'signs'..there's bona fide evidence the company can't operate it's core services, can't reach out to any lender, and is coring out what assets remain (if any).

There is a lot of research in the IO psych community concerning worker motivation, in this instance, pertaining to turnover.

One of the many theories behind worker turnover relates to need fulfillment, one need being a sense of job security. Psychologically speaking, those with higher tolerances for uncertainty will have a much lower response to fluctuations in "job security" issues, and on the converse, those with lower tolerances for uncertainty will have a much higher response to "job security" issues.

There are MANY other factors involved and ways to look at this - if we take a NLP (nuero linguistic programming) approach, we can say that those who left see the benefits of leaving and being certain (e.g. decisive in their action weather then waiting around - your phrase) about their future, presents a better benefit and less risk then sticking it out.

The problem with psychology (all disciplines, not just IO - Industrial/Organizational) is that there are many differing theories and explanations all which tend to give plausible and testable reasons for behaviors.

We could even look at this through a behaviorist model and say that those who are staying on are conditioned to remain in a situation rather then leave, while those who leave have been conditioned to first seek "certainty" rather then stick with an "unknown".

Just don't "resign" until you have something else lined up. Stop coming in, but don't actually turn in that resignation (for your benefit).

They are looking for people to resign, so their overhead for payroll is reduced, and they can show a net positive accounting sheet (income from loans given to students still paying for points vs overhead cost of operation including rent and staff salaries). By staying on with the company as long as possible you hinder that from happening (and for those who are trying to "bring the company down" - this is a good way to help with that without hurting yourself or others).

Cornwalis the Unholy wrote:Additionally, even if NOVA were to get a large financial injection, it would still be months before this financial effect were truly realized.

You maybe right about a large financial injection. However, they said that just before my company (Bi-Lingual), ASA (it's on another thread), and NCB (in the Japan Times article) went bankrupt.

novawhiz wrote:Unless there is a huge injection of cash, and soon, the company is dead meat. Forget 'signs'..there's bona fide evidence the company can't operate it's core services, can't reach out to any lender, and is coring out what assets remain (if any).

I agree. That's why they should get out now.

I was working part-time at NCB when they went bankrupt. During the last one or two months, several notices were posted regarding potential tie-ups. When they went bankrupt, it was pay day. I wasn't on the schedule that day, but I received a phone call explaining the situation and was told that if I had any belongings at the branch that I wanted, I had to come in that day. Luckily, I was available to come in and do that.

I later found out that some J-staff (I think particularly sales staff) hadn't been paid for several months. Also, just a few days earlier, managers were promoting, and selling tickets for, a ski trip that never materialized. Teachers were told in the afternoon that it was OK to tell students the school was closing.

The next day, I went by the school out of curiosity, and saw students standing outside the door (there was a notice), but they hadn't been informed about the closing in person.

One full time worker who lived paycheck to paycheck had gone to the ATM and found there was no money in his account.

Cornwalis the Unholy wrote:There is a lot of research in the IO psych community concerning worker motivation, in this instance, pertaining to turnover.

One of the many theories behind worker turnover relates to need fulfillment, one need being a sense of job security. Psychologically speaking, those with higher tolerances for uncertainty will have a much lower response to fluctuations in "job security" issues, and on the converse, those with lower tolerances for uncertainty will have a much higher response to "job security" issues.

There are MANY other factors involved and ways to look at this - if we take a NLP (nuero linguistic programming) approach, we can say that those who left see the benefits of leaving and being certain (e.g. decisive in their action weather then waiting around - your phrase) about their future, presents a better benefit and less risk then sticking it out.

The problem with psychology (all disciplines, not just IO - Industrial/Organizational) is that there are many differing theories and explanations all which tend to give plausible and testable reasons for behaviors.

We could even look at this through a behaviorist model and say that those who are staying on are conditioned to remain in a situation rather then leave, while those who leave have been conditioned to first seek "certainty" rather then stick with an "unknown".

Cut the psychobabble. One sure way to reduce motivation of staff is by not paying them, despite several promises to do so.

Cornwalis the Unholy wrote:There is a lot of research in the IO psych community concerning worker motivation, in this instance, pertaining to turnover.

One of the many theories behind worker turnover relates to need fulfillment, one need being a sense of job security. Psychologically speaking, those with higher tolerances for uncertainty will have a much lower response to fluctuations in "job security" issues, and on the converse, those with lower tolerances for uncertainty will have a much higher response to "job security" issues.

There are MANY other factors involved and ways to look at this - if we take a NLP (nuero linguistic programming) approach, we can say that those who left see the benefits of leaving and being certain (e.g. decisive in their action weather then waiting around - your phrase) about their future, presents a better benefit and less risk then sticking it out.

The problem with psychology (all disciplines, not just IO - Industrial/Organizational) is that there are many differing theories and explanations all which tend to give plausible and testable reasons for behaviors.

We could even look at this through a behaviorist model and say that those who are staying on are conditioned to remain in a situation rather then leave, while those who leave have been conditioned to first seek "certainty" rather then stick with an "unknown".

Cut the psychobabble. One sure way to reduce motivation of staff is by not paying them, despite several promises to do so.

You're real name isn't Monkeybridge by any chance?

Yeah, it is all bull shit. None of it applies working for eikaiwa in Japan. working for NOVA, wehther you liked it or not, was highly transient in nature. If you weren't the one moving on, someone else was.

You were asked regularly by students and teachers alike,

"Why did you come to Japan?"
"How long have you been in Japan?"
"How long will you stay in Japan?"

on a weekly if not daily basis. This constant questioning of oneself and motivations again negates you psycological crap.

novawhiz wrote:this part I agree with, I'd say toppatsu every other day, call in sick, you know what to do.... call in sick two days, work the 3rd, call in sick again for 2 day, work the 3rd day, etc until you can figure out what to do

Why not just call in sick everyday ?

Don't quit.Force them to fire you.If they don't fire you then go back to work drunk and dirty and hand out fliers to students from rival companies.

mandangaman wrote:Cut the psychobabble. One sure way to reduce motivation of staff is by not paying them, despite several promises to do so.

You're real name isn't Monkeybridge by any chance?

So the real reason is simply money? Not the MUCH LARGER overarching issue that the money may NEVER come in again (Job security)??

Lets imagine you worked for a small company who was just experiencing some financial difficulties, with a real bright future, but because of some unforeseen problems, a single pay check was to be delayed - but due to the start of a merger with another larger company next month, it was known that the company was going to be showing very strong financials in the near future (e.g. Job security and hope for future pay checks). Stock price was rising and all employees knew what was up. By the rationale above about motivation being only about money, employees would have left because they didn't get paid on time...

No, I do believe the issue here is Job security more so then money. Yes it is money and the promise of money, but job security and the future potential for earnings is a bit >> then a single paycheck at this time...

novawhiz wrote:this part I agree with, I'd say toppatsu every other day, call in sick, you know what to do.... call in sick two days, work the 3rd, call in sick again for 2 day, work the 3rd day, etc until you can figure out what to do

Why not just call in sick everyday ?

Don't quit.Force them to fire you.If they don't fire you then go back to work drunk and dirty and hand out fliers to students from rival companies.

There has to be some way to get fired.

Nice idea, but apparently if you are fired for this kind of thing you can't claim the benefit for 3 months. Its only in the case of bankruptcy or redundancy etc that you can get it immediately.

mandangaman wrote:Cut the psychobabble. One sure way to reduce motivation of staff is by not paying them, despite several promises to do so.

You're real name isn't Monkeybridge by any chance?

So the real reason is simply money? Not the MUCH LARGER overarching issue that the money may NEVER come in again (Job security)??

Lets imagine you worked for a small company who was just experiencing some financial difficulties, with a real bright future, but because of some unforeseen problems, a single pay check was to be delayed - but due to the start of a merger with another larger company next month, it was known that the company was going to be showing very strong financials in the near future (e.g. Job security and hope for future pay checks). Stock price was rising and all employees knew what was up. By the rationale above about motivation being only about money, employees would have left because they didn't get paid on time...

No, I do believe the issue here is Job security more so then money. Yes it is money and the promise of money, but job security and the future potential for earnings is a bit >> then a single paycheck at this time...

I don't think the way the company has been behaving gives any sane person a sense of job security, or apartment security, either, for that matter. I can't see NOVA showing strong financials soon, or ever again.

From what I've read on the boards, there are a lot of similarities between this situation and Bi-Lingual.
I just don't want people to make the same mistake I did and be there till the very end. While I agree that they shouldn't quit unless they have something lined up, they should be looking for work on their 'sick' days.